Archive for August, 2015

August 21st, 2015 Comments Off on The Salary Requirements . . . for Now.

Now we have to skip around a bit in the Regulations. You see, in order to be exempt, an employee generally has to meet the salary requirements and the duties requirements for the exemption that is applicable. So it would seem logical that the way to write the Regulations would be to do the intro, which we talked about last time, and then discuss the salary requirements that apply to all (well, most) of the various exemptions and then talk about the individual duties. It would make complete sense to do it that way, so of course that is not the way the government did it.

So let’s you and I be logical and hit the salary test first. To do that we skip down to Subpar G of part 541 of the Regulations. And we are going to start with how much salary is required. And before we do that I need to say this:

What? Then why are we doing this? Because I’m sick of waiting. So I’ll do my best. Again, how much do I need to make to be exempt? Right now, not much.

To qualify as an exempt executive, administrative or professional employee under section 13(a)(1) of the Act, an employee must be compensated on a salary basis at a rate of not less than $455 per week (or $380 per week, if employed in American Samoa by employers other than the Federal Government), exclusive of board, lodging or other facilities. Administrative and professional employees may also be paid on a fee basis, as defined in §541.605.

29 CFR §541.600(a).

By the way, if you did the math, in order to be paid on a salary basis, you only need to be paid $23,660 per year. Now when the proposed Regulations are finalized, that number will go to “an amount that is equal to the 40th percentile of weekly earnings for full-time salaried workers” which for 2016 is estimated to be $970 per week or $50,440 annually. So while the numbers are going to change, the principle should stay the same. So on we go.

But I don’t pay my exempt employees by the week, you say. I offer them an annual salary and pay bi-weekly, so do I still get the exemption? Yep.

The $455 (FOR NOW) a week may be translated into equivalent amounts for periods longer than one week. The requirement will be met if the employee is compensated biweekly on a salary basis of $910 (FOR NOW), semimonthly on a salary basis of $985.83 (FOR NOW), or monthly on a salary basis of $1,971.66 (FOR NOW). However, the shortest period of payment that will meet this compensation requirement is one week.

29 CFR §541.600(b). (And in case you are wondering, yes, I added the (FOR NOW). That is not in the Regulations.

So that is the basic rule. But right off the bat, before we even get out of this Regulation, there are some exceptions to this basic rule. For example, academic administrative employees meet this requirement if they are paid “on a salary basis at a rate at least equal to the entrance salary for teachers in the educational institution by which the employee is employed.” 29 CFR §541.600(c). And for certain computer employees, you can actually pay an hourly rate as long as it is at least “$27.63” per hour. And that is $27.63 per hour, not $27.62. Who comes up with these things? 29 CFR §541.600(d). And for professional employees who are teachers, lawyers or doctors and who are actually engaged in teaching, the practice of law or medicine, or are medical interns or residents, this section does not apply at all. That’s right, you don’t have to pay them a salary, you can pay them by the hour. And frankly, we will have to wait for the final Regulations to see what will happen to these numbers.

And that is not all. If an employee makes $100,000 per year and customarily and regularly performs any one or more of the exempt duties of an “executive, administrative or professional employee” that person is also exempt. In short, that means that if your employee makes $100k per year, that employee does not have to meet the entire duties test. That is a simplified way of putting it, but that is the basic rule. 29 CFR §541.601. Oh, and you get to prorate this in the first and last year of employment without losing the exemption. And the $100k does not have to be all “salary”, it can include commissions, nondiscretionary bonuses, stuff like that. And under the proposed Regulations, what happens to this number? Well, under the proposed Regulations “the highly compensated employee annual salary will be set at the 90th percentile of earnings for full-time salaried workers or an estimated $122,148 annually in 2016.”

So Steve, what the heck do I do between now and when the proposed Regulations are finalized? If you have salaried employees making more than $23,660 but less than $50,440, you might want to give us a call. We have some work to do.

August 12th, 2015 Comments Off on White Collar Exemptions even if your collar isn’t white.

Oh man has it been a while. But the last time we were in this series we were going to start talking about “exemptions” and then we had proposed regs and then I got really busy and well, you know how it goes. So back to Exemptions. And by exemptions I mean not having to pay overtime. That is what you thought I meant right? And we are going to start with the biggest category of exemptions, the White Collar Exemptions. I love that old school term. According to Wiki:

The term refers to the white dress shirts of male office workers common through most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in Western countries, as opposed to the blue overalls worn by many manual laborers.

The term “white collar” is credited to Upton Sinclair, an American writer, in relation to contemporary clerical, administrative, and management workers during the 1930s, though references to white-collar work appear as early as 1911.

I love the term because I am a so called “white collar worker” but I don’t wear that many “white collars.” Mine tend to be a bit more colorful.

See!

So what do the regulations mean when taking about this particular topic? Excellent question:

(a) Section 13(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, provides an exemption from the Act’s minimum wage and overtime requirements for any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity (including any employee employed in the capacity of academic administrative personnel or teacher in elementary or secondary schools), or in the capacity of an outside sales employee, as such terms are defined and delimited from time to time by regulations of the Secretary, subject to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. Section 13(a)(17) of the Act provides an exemption from the minimum wage and overtime requirements for computer systems analysts, computer programmers, software engineers, and other similarly skilled computer employees.

29 CFR §541.0

Look at the list, now you know. Seems like an easy solution to having to pay overtime right, just classify your employees as “executive, administrative or professional” and away you go. Not so fast. First, the regulations make it clear that a job title alone is not enough. “A job title alone is insufficient to establish the exempt status of an employee. The exempt or nonexempt status of any particular employee must be determined on the basis of whether the employee’s salary and duties meet the requirements of the regulations in this part.” 29 CFR §541.2.

If I can’t just change the job title, how do I meet one of these exemptions. For there are whole lists of jobs that are excluded: (a) The section 13(a)(1) exemptions and the regulations in this part do not apply to manual laborers or other “blue collar” workers who perform work involving repetitive operations with their hands, physical skill and energy.” 29 CFR §541.3(a). Similarly,

(b)(1) The section 13(a)(1) exemptions and the regulations in this part also do not apply to police officers, detectives, deputy sheriffs, state troopers, highway patrol officers, investigators, inspectors, correctional officers, parole or probation officers, park rangers, fire fighters, paramedics, emergency medical technicians, ambulance personnel, rescue workers, hazardous materials workers and similar employees, regardless of rank or pay level, who perform work such as preventing, controlling or extinguishing fires of any type; rescuing fire, crime or accident victims; preventing or detecting crimes; conducting investigations or inspections for violations of law; performing surveillance; pursuing, restraining and apprehending suspects; detaining or supervising suspected and convicted criminals, including those on probation or parole; interviewing witnesses; interrogating and fingerprinting suspects; preparing investigative reports; or other similar work.

29 CFR §541.3(b). Why not? “Such employees do not qualify as exempt executive employees because their primary duty is not management of the enterprise in which the employee is employed or a customarily recognized department or subdivision thereof as required under §541.100.” “Such employees do not qualify as exempt administrative employees because their primary duty is not the performance of work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers as required under §541.200.” And “Such employees do not qualify as exempt professionals because their primary duty is not the performance of work requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction or the performance of work requiring invention, imagination, originality or talent in a recognized field of artistic or creative endeavor as required under §541.300.” Id. at (2)(3) & (4). That’s why.

About

Steven Palazzolo brings a unique and varied background to the practice of labor and employment law. Prior to attending law school, Steve spent seven years as a shop floor supervisor in both union and non-union food processing plants. Steve also spent 11 years as in-house counsel specializing in labor and employment law for a multi-billion-dollar multinational corporation with extensive manufacturing operations. During this time Steve also supervised a staff of HR professionals. Steve represents employers, emphasizing counseling clients on employee relations issues, policy development, NLRB, ADA, FMLA and international labor relations. Steve has experience in acquisitions, immigration, employee benefits, campaign finance, employment litigation, civil rights and related issues, and has provided counsel to companies in the agricultural, food processing, hospitality, manufacturing and marketing industries in the United States, South and Central America, Europe and Asia. He currently provides counsel to a variety of leading Midwest businesses.

Don’t forget, this blog is for informational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal advice. You should not act based solely on the contents of this blog. The answers to legal questions often depend upon the specific matter at hand. If you have a legal question, contact your lawyer. For more information or a consultation contact spalazzolo@wnj.com.